6 Key Facts About Search Engines and Being Forgotten

6 Key Facts About Search Engines and Being Forgotten. The global expansion of the internet and digital technologies has led to a fundamental transformation in the processes of gathering, storing, and accessing information. While in the traditional media order, it was a natural process for information to “gather dust” in physical archives and fade from social memory over time, digitalization has eliminated this natural forgetting mechanism. Today, search engines have created a type of “eternal digital memory” by making all kinds of data regarding an individual’s past accessible within seconds and permanently. This situation creates a significant tension between the individual’s right to improve their material and spiritual existence and the public’s right to information. The right to be forgotten is a new-generation human right that emerged to alleviate the pressure of this technological determinism on the individual and to provide the person with the opportunity to shape their future independently of past mistakes or outdated information.

First Critical Fact: Conceptual Framework and Constitutional Foundations of the Right to Be Forgotten

The right to be forgotten, in a general sense, is the authority to demand the removal of outdated, irrelevant, or no longer necessary information about an individual from digital platforms—and particularly from search engine results—and to prevent the constant bringing up of the individual’s past. The most distinctive feature of this right is that the content it targets is essentially lawful and accurate; at this point, the right to be forgotten differs from claims regarding unlawful content such as insult or slander related to the protection of personal rights. In other words, even if a piece of information initially carried the quality of a true and current news item, if it continues to damage the person’s honor and reputation due to the passage of time and changing conditions, the right to be forgotten comes into play.

In the Turkish legal system, although the right to be forgotten is not explicitly regulated under a specific name in the Constitution, it has gained a constitutional basis through the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Court of Cassation. This right is a requirement of the duty imposed on the state in Article 5 of the Constitution to “strive to remove political, economic, and social obstacles that limit the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual in a manner incompatible with the principles of a social state governed by the rule of law and justice.” Furthermore, the “right to improve one’s material and spiritual existence” guaranteed in Article 17 and the “right to request the protection of private life and personal data” regulated in Article 20 form the legal pillars of the right to be forgotten.

The impact of the right to be forgotten on the individual and society is twofold. For the individual, it means the ability to shape their future freely by getting rid of the negative effects experienced in the past; for society, it signifies the reintegration of the individual into society and the elevation of the general quality of the social fabric. The General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation, in its landmark decision of 2015, characterized this situation as the “opportunity to open a new page in one’s life.”

Second Critical Fact: The Status of Search Engines as “Data Controllers” and the Impact of CJEU Decisions

The most critical milestone in the global development of the right to be forgotten is the Google Spain (Costeja González) decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) dated May 13, 2014. In this case, Mr. Gonzalez complained that a newspaper advertisement regarding his home being foreclosed due to debts in 1998 still appeared in Google searches years later despite having paid his debts. In this historic decision, the CJEU ruled that search engines, as structures that collect, index, and present data on the internet, are “data controllers.”

This decision fundamentally changed the implementation mechanism of the right to be forgotten. Now, an individual can apply directly to the search engine to request that their name no longer be associated with certain content, without having to apply to the newspaper or website where the content was originally published. Search engines are accepted to have a “decisive role” in this process; because even if the data is not removed from the original website, it becomes inaccessible to a large part of society once it is removed from search results.

In Turkey, the Personal Data Protection Board (KVKK), with its principle decision dated June 23, 2020, accepted search engines as data controllers and paved the way for users in Turkey to apply directly to search engines for “de-indexing.” Since search engines process personal data through automated means by the nature of the service they provide, they are subject to the data security and data erasure obligations brought by the Law on the Protection of Personal Data (LPPD).

The action taken specifically for search engines is generally not the complete deletion of the data, but rather “de-indexing.” As a result of this process, the relevant link is not shown in the results list for searches made with the person’s name and surname; however, the content continues to exist on the original website. This balance is a fine bridge built between freedom of expression and the right to privacy; while researchers can still reach the information directly through the site, the person’s past does not come to the fore with an ordinary Google search.

Third Critical Fact: The Balancing Test and Conditions for Using the Right to Be Forgotten

Although the right to be forgotten provides strong protection, it is not an absolute or unlimited right. The exercise of this right is subjected to a “balancing test” at the point where it conflicts with freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and the public’s right to receive information. The Personal Data Protection Board and high courts take into account approximately 13-14 different criteria to evaluate a piece of content within the scope of the right to be forgotten.

1. Public Interest and the Currency of the News

For a news item to be removed within the scope of the right to be forgotten, it must first have lost its currency. Currency is a subjective concept and changes specifically for each event; for example, a murder news item may lose its currency after 10 years, while a major corruption scandal that has taken a place in social memory may remain current for many years. Furthermore, there must be no public interest in the content remaining online. If the content carries the quality of historical or scientific data that sheds light on the future of society, its removal cannot be requested.

2. The Individual’s Role in Society and Level of Recognition

Politicians, public officials, and celebrities have a more flexible protection regarding the right to be forgotten compared to ordinary citizens. Since the statements made or events involved by these individuals are important for public oversight, it may be necessary for this information to remain accessible even after years have passed. However, public figures also reserve the right to demand the right to be forgotten for data regarding their private lives that are not related to their public duties.

3. Nature and Accuracy of the Content

Whether the news is based on a factual truth or a value judgment is of critical importance. While it is easier to remove content containing value judgments (e.g., insulting comments), it is more difficult to remove news based on factual truths. Furthermore, the accuracy of the information is essential; if a piece of content is completely false or misleading, it must be removed immediately within the scope of the right to be forgotten.

4. Data Subject Being a Child and Sensitive Data

In cases where the data subject is a child, the right to be forgotten is applied much more broadly in accordance with the principle of the “best interests of the child.” For mistakes made at a young age to confront a person in their adulthood is contrary to the spirit of constitutional protection. Similarly, content containing sensitive personal data such as health data, sexual orientation, or religious beliefs has a higher probability of being removed from search results.

Fourth Critical Fact: Application to Search Engines and Administrative Processes

The legal procedure that must be followed for an individual wishing to exercise the right to be forgotten is shaped by Article 13 of the LPPD. This process mandates applying to the data controller (search engine) before applying directly to judicial remedies.

Google Application Form and Evaluation Process

Under the heading “Content Removal Due to European Privacy Law,” Google provides a form open to users in Turkey as well. The applicant must submit the URLs they wish to be removed, explain the connection of the content with themselves, and detail why it should be removed (e.g., information being old, violation of private life, creating a risk). While examining these requests, Google makes a decision by looking at whether the content carries public interest, the relevance of the information to the data subject’s professional life, and the purpose of informing society.

Microsoft Bing and Yandex Applications

Bing (Microsoft) accepts applications through a similar “EU Privacy Request” form. In this form, the person’s full legal name, the name used in the search query, and why the content is “inaccurate, inadequate, or irrelevant” are asked. Yandex, of Russian origin, accepts applications both through its digital help center and directly through communication channels, as it has an office in Turkey. It is a legal obligation for search engines to respond to these requests within 30 days.

Complaint Mechanism to the LPPD Board

If the search engine rejects the person’s application or does not respond within 30 days, the relevant person can file a complaint with the Personal Data Protection Board within 30 days (and in any case 60 days). If the Board finds the search engine’s decision to be erroneous as a result of its examination, it gives instructions for the relevant links to be de-indexed. Heavy administrative fines can be applied to search engines in case of failure to comply with the Board’s decisions.

Fifth Critical Fact: The Right to Be Forgotten in Turkish Jurisprudence and Landmark Cases

The current boundaries of the right to be forgotten in Turkish law have been drawn by historic decisions made by high judicial organs. These decisions emphasize that the right is not just a digital “link deletion” process, but a protective shield for human honor and dignity.

Decision of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation No. 2015/4-1097

This decision is the first and most important “milestone” where the right to be forgotten was recognized in Turkey. A female plaintiff requested that her name, which clearly appeared in a book (or news) regarding a bad event she experienced in the past, be erased from the memory of society. The Court of Cassation accepted that the right to be forgotten applies not only to digital data but also to all kinds of personal data kept in places easily accessible by the public. According to the court, the fact that a person’s name is still mentioned with that event despite the long time passed since the incident violates the privacy of private life.

The N.B.B. Decision of the Constitutional Court

In this decision dated March 3, 2016, the Constitutional Court ruled that the applicant’s honor and reputation were damaged due to news regarding past drug use remaining in archives. The Court defined the right to request that negative events experienced in the past in digital memory be forgotten after a while as a positive obligation of the state “unless there is an overriding public interest.” While accepting that internet news archives are within the scope of press freedom, the Constitutional Court stated that a fair balance must be established between the right to protect an individual’s honor and press freedom.

Sixth Critical Fact: Annulment of Article 9 of Law No. 5651 and the New 2024-2025 Era

The most dramatic change in the processes of the right to be forgotten and access blocking in Turkey occurred with the Constitutional Court’s annulment of Article 9 of Law No. 5651. The annulment decision entered into force on October 10, 2024, starting a new era in the field of internet law.

Grounds for Annulment and the Status of Criminal Judgeships of Peace

In the old regulation, Criminal Judgeships of Peace could quickly issue access blocking decisions in applications made with the claim of violation of personal rights, without holding a hearing and without listening to the opposing party. The Constitutional Court stated that this procedure heavily violated freedom of expression and the press, that the guarantees of procedural law were not provided, and completely annulled the article. As of October 10, 2024, the authority of the Criminal Judgeships of Peace to remove content based on Article 9 has ended.

The “Prima Facie Infringement” Doctrine for 2025 and 2026

The new regime, prepared to fill the legal gap and started to be implemented in 2025, is based on the “Prima Facie Infringement” doctrine. According to this:

• If a violation in a piece of content can be understood “at first sight” without the need for any investigation (e.g., unauthorized sharing of nude photos, obvious swearing, and insults), Criminal Judgeships of Peace will still be able to intervene quickly.
• However, if the state of violation is controversial, if it involves criticism of a public figure, or if it requires complex balancing tests such as the currency of the data, the subject now falls within the jurisdiction of general courts (Civil Courts of First Instance).

In this new era, applications for the right to be forgotten have shifted more towards the “search engine-LPPD” axis. While it has become more difficult for individuals to have links deleted by courts, requesting de-indexing from search engines has become a more rational and legal path. Furthermore, even if the content is hosted outside of Turkey (such as Google, YouTube, X), access blocking decisions from Turkey continue to be issued within the framework of Law No. 5651.

The Legal Necessity of Opening a “New Page” in the Digital Age

The right to be forgotten is an effort to re-establish human sovereignty over technology in an age where technology dominates humans. Enormous power of search engines cannot condemn individuals to live with the ghosts of the past. Legal development in Turkey, especially with the Constitutional Court’s annulment decision in 2024, is evolving towards a more balanced process open to judicial review.

For individuals, the right to be forgotten is not just the deletion of a link, but the restitution of honor and dignity, the protection of the privacy of private life, and the freedom to continue social life without a stain. The responsibility carried by search engines as data controllers is of vital importance for the effective use of this right. In the future projection (2025-2026), it is expected that the scope of this right will expand to cover content produced by artificial intelligence and data profiling algorithms. The law will continue to protect the need for “forgetting” and “being forgiven,” which is one of the most fundamental characteristics of being human, against the infinite memory of the digital world.